It is totally a loss for the American consumer who likes cheaper knockoffs of the quality original. That much is true. If it wasn't true, there wouldn't be WalMart, fake Rolexes and fake Gucci handbags. But innovation? Really? Samsung's only innovation is being the best at ripping off Apple's designs.
True, but I'm disappointed that the jury fell for Samsung's silly Fidler patent nonsense.
At least Apple's patent wasn't invalidated, right?
Originally Posted by lamewing
Have you ever looked at the chips inside your iPhone?
Yeah, it's a… wait for it… EXACT COPY of the PLANS sent to them from APPLE, who DESIGNED the chip.
Sounds like following instructions like a toddler is right up Samsung's alley. I've no complaints with them doing that exclusively for the rest of their existence. They'll be putting that copying to good use for a change.
Originally Posted by lamewing
I guess that is good for consumers as well, right?
Look, you're tired, you've just had all of your arguments legally invalidated and mocked, take a break and come back with some fresh material. Be better than all the others who just trip over their own legs and scream "Apple will lose marketshare just you wait" like slapppy.
At least Apple's patent wasn't invalidated, right?
Yeah, it's a… wait for it… EXACT COPY of the PLANS sent to them from APPLE, who DESIGNED the chip.
Sounds like following instructions like a toddler is right up Samsung's alley. I've no complaints with them doing that exclusively for the rest of their existence. They'll be putting that copying to good use for a change.
Look, you're tired, you've just had all of your arguments legally invalidated and mocked, take a break and come back with some fresh material. Be better than all the others who just trip over their own legs and scream "Apple will lose marketshare just you wait" like slapppy.
What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?
Am I the only one who hates the Samesung, Samscum, Scamsung, et al. comments. I guess I just don't see it as clever or original to use these well worn puns. I'd rather see something original even if the attempt at being funny or clever failed, or a cogent argument as to why they are scummy, copyists.
Samsunk anyone?
OK, the first time, it's funny. But when it is systematically repeated, it becomes boring.
Obviously the jury didn't fall for Samsung's complete over simplification. This was about a lot more than "rounded rectangles". Samsung's lawyers aren't that obtuse but they were assuming the jury was. They assumed wrong.
True, but I'm disappointed that the jury fell for Samsung's silly Fidler patent nonsense.
I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision?
Yes it is a loss for companies that are not creative and need to steal other companies designs and intellectual property in order to try to compete in the tech industry. It's just a crying shame that they now have to pay. I'm really going to lose sleep over this.
What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?
Incorrect. Apple could have made someone else make ARM chips and other components for them. There might be some sacrifices, but they'd have access to the same alternatives as everyone else. And Apple could certainly exist even if the iPhone and iPad had never been created.
I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision?
That doesn't really add up. The Tab looks more like the iPad (particularly when you consider packaging) than their phones look like the iPhone. If the jury wanted to give them leeway, it would probably have been on the phones - unless they bought the prior art nonsense
They didn't specifically cite the reason (nor would they be expected to), so I can only speculate that Fidler had a lot to do with it. Eventually, some of the jurors will probably talk to the press so you 'll get a better idea.
Can I upgrade my 3GS and 4 to a version of iOS that has all the new bells and whistles? I guess that is good for consumers as well, right?
Well, yes. iOS 5.1.1 runs just fine on a 3GS: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20069641-1/how-well-does-ios-5-run-on-iphone-3gs/
"We've been running iOS5 on a iPhone 3GS for the last 24 hours and have had no problems with it. It runs smoothly and the experience doesn't seem noticeably different from running iOS4. We'll let you know if we encounter any bugs as they come along, but for now it seems safe to say iOS5 works fine on the 3GS."
Now, there might be a few features that won't run due to the age of the hardware, but iOS 5 runs just fine on a 3GS-and that hardware is several years old.
In contrast, even a brand new Android phone may never run even today's version of Android, much less future versions.
"should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer."
Somebody call the Wambulance. Boo Hoo. Like I said in the other post Samscum is just butt hurt for the reaming they got at the hands of a jury who saw them for the liars they are.
I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.
The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.
I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.
The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
Can I upgrade my Samsung phone to the latest version of Android? No? Why not? You said you were good for consumers, right?
Can I upgrade my 3GS and 4 to a version of iOS that has all the new bells and whistles? I guess that is good for consumers as well, right?
It is totally a loss for the American consumer who likes cheaper knockoffs of the quality original. That much is true. If it wasn't true, there wouldn't be WalMart, fake Rolexes and fake Gucci handbags. But innovation? Really? Samsung's only innovation is being the best at ripping off Apple's designs.
Originally Posted by jragosta
True, but I'm disappointed that the jury fell for Samsung's silly Fidler patent nonsense.
At least Apple's patent wasn't invalidated, right?
Originally Posted by lamewing
Have you ever looked at the chips inside your iPhone?
Yeah, it's a… wait for it… EXACT COPY of the PLANS sent to them from APPLE, who DESIGNED the chip.
Sounds like following instructions like a toddler is right up Samsung's alley. I've no complaints with them doing that exclusively for the rest of their existence. They'll be putting that copying to good use for a change.
Originally Posted by lamewing
I guess that is good for consumers as well, right?
Look, you're tired, you've just had all of your arguments legally invalidated and mocked, take a break and come back with some fresh material. Be better than all the others who just trip over their own legs and scream "Apple will lose marketshare just you wait" like slapppy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
At least Apple's patent wasn't invalidated, right?
Yeah, it's a… wait for it… EXACT COPY of the PLANS sent to them from APPLE, who DESIGNED the chip.
Sounds like following instructions like a toddler is right up Samsung's alley. I've no complaints with them doing that exclusively for the rest of their existence. They'll be putting that copying to good use for a change.
Look, you're tired, you've just had all of your arguments legally invalidated and mocked, take a break and come back with some fresh material. Be better than all the others who just trip over their own legs and scream "Apple will lose marketshare just you wait" like slapppy.
What the hell are you talking about? "Legally invalidated"? I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now. How has that been legally invalidated?
Originally Posted by lamewing
I stated that the chips are made by Samsung. Apple simply couldn't exist without Samsung right now.
That wasn't at all the context in which you were posting.
Time for your medicine Fandroids, get ready for WIndows phones all around...bwahahahahahaha
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Am I the only one who hates the Samesung, Samscum, Scamsung, et al. comments.
No, you are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkO
The answer should have been, what have Koreans innovated? Throughout history they've copied, just ask their neighbor Japan.
Very interesting movie. I had no clue about history of Korea. Thx.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Am I the only one who hates the Samesung, Samscum, Scamsung, et al. comments. I guess I just don't see it as clever or original to use these well worn puns. I'd rather see something original even if the attempt at being funny or clever failed, or a cogent argument as to why they are scummy, copyists.
Samsunk anyone?
OK, the first time, it's funny. But when it is systematically repeated, it becomes boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Obviously the jury didn't fall for Samsung's complete over simplification. This was about a lot more than "rounded rectangles". Samsung's lawyers aren't that obtuse but they were assuming the jury was. They assumed wrong.
True, but I'm disappointed that the jury fell for Samsung's silly Fidler patent nonsense.
I'm not sure it's only because of Fidler. Maybe they wanted to leave room for innovations with this form-factor for tablets? And they use the Fidler's pretext? Did the jury commented its decision?
Yes it is a loss for companies that are not creative and need to steal other companies designs and intellectual property in order to try to compete in the tech industry. It's just a crying shame that they now have to pay. I'm really going to lose sleep over this.
Apple's inspiration for the lawsuit was a bowl of water... a bowl of cold water thrown in Samsung's face.
Incorrect. Apple could have made someone else make ARM chips and other components for them. There might be some sacrifices, but they'd have access to the same alternatives as everyone else. And Apple could certainly exist even if the iPhone and iPad had never been created.
That doesn't really add up. The Tab looks more like the iPad (particularly when you consider packaging) than their phones look like the iPhone. If the jury wanted to give them leeway, it would probably have been on the phones - unless they bought the prior art nonsense
They didn't specifically cite the reason (nor would they be expected to), so I can only speculate that Fidler had a lot to do with it. Eventually, some of the jurors will probably talk to the press so you 'll get a better idea.
Well, yes. iOS 5.1.1 runs just fine on a 3GS:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20069641-1/how-well-does-ios-5-run-on-iphone-3gs/
"We've been running iOS5 on a iPhone 3GS for the last 24 hours and have had no problems with it. It runs smoothly and the experience doesn't seem noticeably different from running iOS4. We'll let you know if we encounter any bugs as they come along, but for now it seems safe to say iOS5 works fine on the 3GS."
Now, there might be a few features that won't run due to the age of the hardware, but iOS 5 runs just fine on a 3GS-and that hardware is several years old.
In contrast, even a brand new Android phone may never run even today's version of Android, much less future versions.
Thanks for proving the point.
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Apple's inspiration for the lawsuit was a bowl of water... a bowl of cold water thrown in Samsung's face.
Samsung should be thankful. Microsoft only got a glass of ice water…
"should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer."
Somebody call the Wambulance. Boo Hoo. Like I said in the other post Samscum is just butt hurt for the reaming they got at the hands of a jury who saw them for the liars they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoradala
"It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rounded corners and rectangles."
What incredible arrogance and ignorance.
A disgusting company !
To Samsung, and those that believe "design" can't be copied or stolen I present:
I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.
The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.
The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.
So you have no problem with the car above?
Originally Posted by bmason1270
So you have no problem with the car above?
Well, it's a little ostentatious and boat like, but as a present I wouldn't complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, it's a little ostentatious and boat like, but as a present I wouldn't complain.
hahahah
But wouldn't you? Look at it again.